1. Field of the Invention
The present invention relates to providing schematic reviews in the product development lifecycle for board design processes.
2. Background Information
Typically, in a product development life cycle, high speed board design process schematic design reviews are important and critical. Schematic design entries are conventionally undertaken via a schematic editor to check the quality of the schematic entry a design review and a checklist follows.
A schematic page by page check can be performed by printing or by an online review of the schematic design entry tool by clicking on each net, reviewing start and end points, and then analyzing. For a typical design, which can have upwards of 300 pages or 5000 nets, it is usually necessary to flip the page every time to check each signal to see its starting point and end point. Tracking the signal is a manual endeavor, and hence a tedious process which requires a high level of concentration in order to identify logical errors in the design.
The primary purpose of a design review is to identify problems such as typographical errors on the assigned signal names, and the logical connectivity problems for the signals in the schematic design, that may have a relatively large number of pages. It may take a couple of days to complete the schematic review of a design having for more than 300 pages.
Thus, a conventional solution for schematic design review may require the reviewer to print all schematic sheets and review them page by page by flipping through the sheets to the corresponding nets. This method of schematic design review is time consuming and presents a high error possibility.
Another conventional solution for schematic design review may require the reviewer to check/verify online using conventional tools. For example, the reviewer may need to click on, “find net” or “highlight net”. This would show all the nets which are connected to the signal. However, there is a need to click each signal and see whether it is connected properly or not. This method of review can be highly confusing and cumbersome for a reviewer.